The Taunts of a Coward

“Never trust a draft dodger.”
Rush Limbaugh, 1993

The Taunts of a Coward
by: Joe Leonardi

I am listening to the once conservative, talk show host, turned Presidential spokesperson Rush Limbaugh (Wednesday 3/28/07). In the first hour of today’s show he is dutifully attacking Senator Charles Hagel. He didn’t spend a lot of time on him, but in the few minutes he did — he gave away his duplicity. His tirade against Senator Hagel, centered around claims that the Senator must have forgotten September 11th. And therein, my friends, lies the rub. Rush is bringing out the tried and true, implying and insinuating a connection between Iraq and the terror attacks on our country. He invoked 9/11 at least ten times. During this tirade he kept reiterating that we are at war against “Muslims”, I guess someone on his staff finally penetrated his purported drugged induced deafness; because after about the third time he corrected it to “Militant Muslims.”

It has been said before, however, obviously it bears repeating. Saddam didn’t have anything to do with September 11th. There was no connection, 9/11 was not used in our testimony to the U.N., there was no Saddam-Al Qaeda collaboration. Our attack was a predetermined design by Neo-Cons from the think tank, The Project for a New American Century. Out of power after Bush 41, this group attempted to convince President Clinton to attack Saddam. After President George W. Bush assumed the Presidency many from this think tank moved into his administration. Most notable, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Paul O’Neil, former Treasury Secretary, outlines many of the behind the scenes goings on in his book; The Price of Loyalty:…. O’Neil’s book wasn’t what convinced me that this misguided war was a predetermined, done deal looking for justification. The convincing factor was the Nightline episode interviewing members of the PNAC think tank. The information about the plan to oust Saddam came straight from the horses’ mouths. See my column, “Warning Conservative Republicans.”

Mr. Limbaugh went on to claim that anyone against the war is linguini spined. I get such a kick out of El Rushbo when he goes on this particular condemnation. There is nothing better than a coward calling people out. Rush avoided the war of his generation, Vietnam, due to an inactive pilonidal cyst. I remember when someone first told me this, I fell on the floor laughing. You see, I too have an inactive pilonidal cyst. I learned about it during my admission physical into the United States Navy. I was concerned it was going to disqualify me and I asked the doctor about it. His words, which stuck in my head, are what made me laugh so hard when I heard about Rush. The Doc said, ‘no, it’s nothing, but if your family had pull, this would have gotten you out of the draft during ‘nam.’   Rush you linguine spined, miserable, wussy coward. You continue to deride true heroes that served in the war your influential Daddy kept you out of. Please, just shut up!

Few true conservatives have inwardly been supportive of this administration. All the gains made in the forty years it took us to finally get a conservative in office have been destroyed in the last six years. We finally have a reasonable, conservative voice in Chuck Hagel. And if you listen to the Senator, the bulk of his criticism has been on the mishandling of the war. The kicker is he has been correct — while those in the administration have been wrong. In June of 2005 Vice President Cheney said “that the insurgency is in it’s last throes” and predicted that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office. However, Senator Hagel said in August of 2005 that “the United States is getting more bogged down in Iraq.”  Well a year and half later who’s right?

Mr. Hagel went against his party in this vote. I believe he took such bold action to send a message to not only the administration, but to the American people, that we must start being realistic about getting out of Iraq. Senator Hagel will be mercilessly torn apart by White House hatchetmen Limbaugh and Hannity, but it doesn’t matter, because the time for rhetoric is over. It is urgent now that austere people take action and start looking for serious solutions.

If President Hagel ever wants to get in Rush’s good graces — all he will have to do is invite him to the White House and put him up in the Lincoln Bedroom. It worked for the Bush’s.

Joe Leonardi



Filed under Chuck Hagel, Conservative, hagel, Iraq, NeoCon, President Bush, Republican, Rush Limbaugh, War

14 responses to “The Taunts of a Coward

  1. Jim

    Joe I’m telling you, you are a breath of fresh air. You are a fine representative of Conservativism. I only wish this Misadministration had a little bet of your quality and true Conservatism.
    They have done more than set the party back ten years. I can not in my wildest imagination ever imagine the general population making the mistake of trusting ruling Republicans in many life times.
    I have to tell you! You pigeon holed Rush. I wish you could get that evaluation to him and do it publicly, preferably on the air on his show.
    He routinely makes an Ass of himself but like the rest of the Bush cadre he is very comfortable with it as long as he thinks he gets his way like Bush. It will be a long time before this country realizes the damage Bush has done to America and the entire world. The effects will be felt long after Bush and Limbaugh are gone and it will not be good.

  2. Fine – your point is well taken.

    However, I have yet to see a plan of any kind from the Democrats on how to handle the war on terror.

    P.S. Nice blog. Subscribed!

  3. Hi Dave,

    Thanks for the kind words. I am going to write a column in the next week or so on the war on terror.

    Keep up the dialogue

  4. blubonnet

    It’s nice to see a Conservative know what is going on.

    There are many more amongst Lefties, as well, that have seen the truth of this monster cabal at:

    Check out the video documentaries at the bottom of the screen too there at that site.

  5. blubonnet

    Nice to see a Conservative in the land of the living, mentally speaking. Check out who is among those of us that “get it”. Many Conservatives among them. You’ll be amazed. Also, at the bottom of the screen there, are an assortment of valuable documentaries. Please check out:

  6. Querent

    “Few true conservatives have inwardly been supportive of this administration.” And NO conservative, true or otherwise, raised a finger to oppose or even question the most venal, ignorant, antidemocratic, and corrupt administration in modern times. Why? Because they were too busy enabling it in its quest to destroy the Constitution. Actions count. “Inward” dissent is just another word for cowardice. Conservatives started trying to distinguish themselves from the Bush administration around the time Bush hit 30% in the polls. Before that, they were ardently, if not rabidly, supportive of everything he said and did, no matter how authoritarian, irrational, or irresponsible. You married the man, but now you want to weasel out of the “in poorer” part of the promise. It won’t fly. I dare you to put this comment up.

  7. You dare, me? READ some of the other comments I have put up. Your took the time to put out a well written, well thought out comment, why wouldn’t I post it? Just because it disagrees with me? Never — I want dialogue I believe dialogue can lead to action, that can lead to solutions. So, I have no problem putting up post.
    Many conservatives were out there speaking against President Bush. Senator Hagel has been speaking out on Iraq since 2005. I did not vote for then Governor Bush in 2000 primary. In 2004 I had no choice in the primary and the Dems really didn’t put up that great a candidate in Senator John Kerry. As I said in response to another poster, if Sen. Kerry were the best he would be running in this election.

    The hope of this site is that in a small way it may wake up conservatives to see that we should never allow ourselves to be co-opted again.

    I know in PA the Dems that won, locally, were very Conservative by most Dem’s standards. I would go on to say that in most other places Senator Robert Casey would be a Republican. So the far left on the D side is what the neo-cons are on the R side.

    I invite you to post comments anytime. However, one note, and I genuinely hope you don’t take offense, but if you are going to post anonymously you might be careful using a term like “cowardice” to describe others.

    Thank you for the comment
    Keep up the Dialogue

  8. Ok, Joe, but the neo-cons, the PNACkers outside the government, like the Weekly Standard folks, have been consistently critical of the conduct of the war, even before Sen. Hagel, whom you acclaim. The difference between Hagel and the Weekly Standard folks is also on the question of the timetable. If we are going to have a timetable, we might as well just get out as soon as logistically feasible.

    For conservatives, minus the isolationist paleo-cons like Buchanan, supporting the spread of freedom with force when prudent and necessary, has been the centerpiece of our foreign policy principles. The problem with this administration is not in principles but in mismanagement. Hopefully, Gen. Petraeus can get it right.

    I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq because I thought it imprudent though certainly justified, but now I support our commitment for as long as it takes to secure peace and freedom. What else can we do? Should we abandon the Iraqis to vengeful extremists like we abandoned the South Vietnamese to vengeful communists?

  9. Hi Andrew,

    I agree that timetables are not a good idea, but something really needs to be done at this point. I disagree that conservatives believe in spreading freedom with prudent force. I’m not even sure I understand that. What do we say, become free or we will kill you? Supporting growing democracies and supplying military support at request is on thing, this NeoCon vision of democracy at the point of a sword or barrel of a gun is not the conservatism I grew up on.
    And are we going to start rewriting Vietnam now? Should we have continued to spend money and lives there? We didn’t loose that war due to the north, we lost it due to lack of support from the south. Every person I served with from Chiefs and Master Chiefs up to Captains in the Navy all related to us that we stayed in Vietnam much too long. *Since I didn’t serve in that war or at that time I can only relay what I was told. But their conversations really helped shaped many of my views. And remember these were career military not draft dodgers or those who got out and protested.*
    That is the same thing going on in Iraq now. We have Iraqis killing Iraqis. The Shiite/Sunni split is generations old we are not going to settle it now, 1 year from now 10 years from now and probably not 100 years from now.

    We must face one other major fact, we do not have the military man power to pull this off. Flat out and simple, even if I thought this was the right thing to do, we don’t have the troops. I often made this reference, when I was running for Congress, that when I ended my time in the Navy we were on the verge of a 6oo ship Navy. Today the U.S. Navy is around 270 ships if not less.
    President Clinton and even President George W. Bush fell into the trap because we were not at war let’s cut the military. The only two Presidents that realized a strong military is necessary in both war and peace were Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
    I get a lot of flack for saying this but I stand by it, our young men and women join the armed forces to protect and defend the United States of America, not other countries, not other people.
    This war has been mishandled from day one and as long as the CNC is the same nothing is going to change. The President continues to tell us he will listen to the Generals on the ground, except when they don’t agree with him, then he replaces them.
    I appreciate your comments and your support. I have asked those that are of age, who support the war, why they don’t sign up and fight. I get childish taunts and tons of excuses but I see limited action. I served proudly, I would have gone where my commander sent me without hesitation whether I believed in the cause or the mission because I served the President and the Constitution, not a particular President.
    Back to timelines, I do not in theory support timelines, but I do support objectives and an exit strategy. We were told that the objectives, one of the many revised objectives, were to oust Saddam and install a democratically elected government. Objectives met — Why are we still there? No exit strategy. Don’t have one, never did. We were brought into this war by many of those that mishandled Vietnam.
    I put a lot in what Senator Hagel says for many of the reasons I put a lot in what Colin Powell says — They were warriors who served and fought and understood the unglorified realities of combat.
    I went on a lot today, I think the discussion is worth the effort and a little time away from family even at a holiday. I could be wrong about a lot, actually I hope I am, but I will never forget at the beginning of the Iraq invasion I had it out with a patient of mine who was convinced that this would be over, because the military men in charge said so, in a matter of weeks. The debate got pretty heated and the patient actually didn’t see him again until about 6 months ago. He was angry at me for being so “hard headed” but then he admitted the reason he wouldn’t come back because so far my predictions had come true and he was pretty “harsh” with me.

    I wanted to be wrong then as I want to be wrong now. I just don’t think I am. This is a generational religious war. Democracy and freedom don’t play into it. Theocracies are inherently not democratic and that will be the form of government that more than likely will end up in place.

    Thanks for the Comment
    Keep up the Dialogue

    P.S. Please excuse typos or incomplete thoughts. I am doing this in a hurry, I will post a more complete column on this in the near future.

  10. Joe,
    You sound isolationist-leaning, which I don’t mean as an insult. And you sound patriotic, which goes without saying if one is a conservative.
    Would you disagree that conservative politics are based on the ideals of the American founding? And would not the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration supply the test of legitimacy of foreign (and our own) governments? Regimes that do not secure the rights of the governed are illegitimate; governments that do, are. That defines for us who is friend and enemy in the international arena. The moral tendencies of Americans today still reflect these views; we view a nation that arbitrarily persecutes its citizenry with a justified contempt for the regime and pity for the people. This is our current bifurcated attitude towards the mullahcracy in Iran and the Iranian people.
    Neo-cons have not changed conservativism as much as you say, I think. Perhaps it is multiculturalism and European-think that has changed conservatives’ views of ourselves. Didn’t Reagan also believe in regime change? In Evil Empires and Cities on Hills? Did he not match deeds with words in order to bring down communism? Did not Natan Sharansky, whose ideas are so core to the neo-cons’ and Bush’s foreign policy principles, teach the lessons he learned from Reagan’s statesmanship?
    Europeans and multiculturalists follow the logic of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Whereas we view legitimacy through the lense of regime character, and see whether a regime respects rights or not, Westphalian logic dictates respect for borders, regardless of what the nature of the regime is inside. War exhausted European nations in 1648 agreed to not disturb each other’s nations, no matter what the nature of the regime within. This is why those who opposed the Iraq invasion on moral grounds, talked incessantly about the sovereignty of Iraq, as if Saddam’s right to hide behind his ‘sacred’ borders had a greater moral standing than the rights of the people he was tormenting.
    I support an exit strategy, too – victory, which I think is defined by a secure peace for Iraqis. General security – the security of all persons regardless of ethnic-theological status – provides the foundation for institutionalized civil liberty.
    Bush really messed up in sticking with Rumsfeld for so long, and Gen. Powell and McCain were clearly right about occupation forces. Bush’s famed loyalty was, in the instance of Rumsfeld, disastrous for us and the Iraqi people.
    Unlike many conservatives, I do think we should think carefully about the Vietnam-Iraq comparison, and not just dismiss the comparison in knee-jerk fashion.
    Surely the Vietnamese Communists’ government was unjust according to our standard; they were fair game. But our war there was politically imprudent. The CIA knew in 1960 that Ho would have been elected if a plebiscite were held in the South. I wrote about the Iraq-Vietnam comparison just yesterday so feel free:
    My wife says I should tell you I just had two margaritas, so sorry if I’m incoherent.

  11. Ringo

    Joe, with all due respect, Rush is an entertainer. Nothing more. His entertaining style does well on radio. His content is nothing, without understanding of historical context or the broader issues, no depth, he is just a laugh.

  12. Hi Ringo,

    I used to think that about Rush also, but he has come to influence a generation of young Republicans who don’t get it. They actually quote him in not only in general debates, but I have heard candidates running for office quote him.

    Thanks for the Comment
    Keep up the Dialogue

  13. Hi Andrew,

    I hope the Margaritas were good. You make some great points, but following the logic that because of gov’t were illegitimate we would be at war with half the world at any given time. Darfur, Cuba, North Korea, heck Communist China…

    Reagan used economics to bring down the Soviet Union. And let’s face one fact about Saddam, isolation was working. He was pretty much the mayor of Baghdad at the time of the invasion. Over time we could have possibly had regime change. Also Iran at the time was being pushed in moderate (for the mideast) directions, but our naming them in the axis of evil speech gave way for more radical factions to take power. I really wish the President would read history more, speak softly and carry a big stick. He was being verbose and carrying a more technologically advanced but much smaller stick.

    I don’t take offense I am probably a little isolationist leaning, but I like to think of it as an American first attitude. I am okay with much globalization but I think we need to put our country’s interest first. (I will be doing a post)

    Also remember much of the mid east problems can be traced back to great Britain’s divide and conquer mentality. Iraq and Kuwait were part of Saudi Arabia and much of the destabilization and factional wars were intentional— if not giving rise to, added to, many of today’s problems. So what foundations are we laying for tomorrows problems? I am a big believer, through the market and technology, in breaking our dependence on foreign oil and making the mideast irrelevant in our interests.

    I may have to do a post on this.

    I appreciate the comments and I am going to add your site to my blog roll. Feel free to post any time.

    Keep up the Dialogue

  14. Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s